Canon SX50 Specs (1 Viewer)

[DavidNB]

Oldrarek, I know that Roy often shoots in RAW and does some post production.

A couple of points, though, from a comparative newbie like yourself, but perhaps a few months ahead.

One is that even with superzoom cameras there is no substitute for getting close to the subject in good light.

The second is that my results have, to my mind, improved a lot since reading this whole thread, and especially since feeding Crazyfingers' settings into my custom settings. They came some hundreds of posts ago, I forget exactly where, but if you skim through the thread you will find them.

Using superfine JPEG is good, too. How to find that is not obvious, but you will find the answer in the thread. To be honest that is so not obvious that I have forgotten how to do it, but it is stored in my custom settings, and I'd suggest doing the same.

David

 

[Bob Philpott]

Oldrarek, I know that Roy often shoots in RAW and does some post production.

I have had my SX50 for 9 or 10 months and still can't quite make up my ind about RAW and Superfine JPEG. Sometimes I think RAW has a slight advantage but another day the JPEG seems to do as well. Certainly for long distance record shots I always shoot JPEG which allows the TC to be added in.

This summer the camera has proved its worth in much closer work. The amount of butterflies around have proved worthy subjects and although I suspect my best shots are still from the DSLR I am more than pleased with this camera's results.

 

[crazyfingers]

One is that even with superzoom cameras there is no substitute for getting close to the subject in good light.

While I agree with you I think that it's worth saying that with long distance shots it's frequently the quality of the air that makes a big difference, given enough light. Frequently my long distance shots tend to look worse than closer distance because at long distance ripples in the air that astronomers call "seeing" distort the light. This changes with the weather.

Here examples of two photo taken on different days at maximum optical zoom from basically the same spot far away. The third photo shows basically where I was for both photos. The sign is at the end of the path and can't even be seen.

One shot is way worse because of the quality of the air that day.

 

[syngensmyth]

I can't believe the amount of time I spent reading reviews and looking at examples before buying the SX50. I don't know why, it is not that expensive but I did not want another paper weight at any price.

If I had seen this site/thread first, my research would have been over. The results posted here would have been proof enough for me. And I love all the 7D owners using the SX50 and liking it. Is there a better testimonial?

The few shots I have taken verify to me the value of this little gem. I'm even excited about finding bird shots. Who would have guessed. I will need to find a bird recognition resource.

 

[DavidNB]

I know it is not bird related, but at the moment I'm spending more time trying out my new Raynox macro lens.

I am pretty much a noob at taking pictures by any other method the automatic point and shoot, so it will come as no surprise that I find it difficult to know what to do with settings using the macro.

Observations so far, which I would be happy to see added to or corrected in the light of something I'm doing wrong.

I have not been able to get anything reasonable when using manual focus. I use Av as I have been advise that it gives better depth of field. I don't see much difference between having the camera focus setting set on normal or macro, but I think the former just edges it.

And I have found that trying to use the zoom any further than to avoid vignetting doesn't seem to help.

And I think that is just about it.

If anyone could suggest a list of settings to have on one of my custom settings I would be very grateful.

The most recent pics on my photobucket account are - as I type, and this will not remain for ever - all attempts at macro, so I'll just post a link to my photobucket account.

http://s419.photobucket.com/user/dble_photo/library/?sort=3&page=1

Any comments or suggestions how to do it better more than welcome.

David

 

[dantheman]

I can't believe the amount of time I spent reading reviews and looking at examples before buying the SX50. I don't know why, it is not that expensive but I did not want another paper weight at any price.

If I had seen this site/thread first, my research would have been over. The results posted here would have been proof enough for me. And I love all the 7D owners using the SX50 and liking it. Is there a better testimonial?

Oh dear.

I also didn't see this thread, but have just gone and bought the Kodak 52x superzoom ...


:h?:

 

[Robert S J Smith]

Some recent favorite photos with this camera...

Storm Petrel - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524455291/
Kittiwake in flight - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524422225/
Golden-ringed Dragonfly in flight (which I'm really pleased with) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9527341138/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524563939/in/photostream/
Kestrel close up - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524571663/
Med Gull in flight - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524582385/in/photostream/

More on my Flickr to come...

Cheers,

Robert

 

[syngensmyth]

Oh dear.

I also didn't see this thread, but have just gone and bought the Kodak 52x superzoom ...


:h?:

I know nothing about the Kodak and it will probably be great. Can you return it?8-P Just kidding ... sort of.

Here's my first gallery pic. Resorted to the city park and totally cheated. Focal length 215mm. Nothing to brag about but had to start somewhere. I over sharpened maybe.

 

[syngensmyth]

Oh dear.

I also didn't see this thread, but have just gone and bought the Kodak 52x superzoom ...


:h?:

I know nothing about the Kodak and it will probably be great. Can you return it?8-P Just kidding ... sort of.

Here's my first gallery pic. Resorted to the city park and totally cheated. Focal length 215mm. Nothing to brag about but had to start somewhere. The goose came out better with not fringe or banding around head to remove.
View attachment 458309

 

[punta]

I know nothing about the Kodak and it will probably be great. Can you return it?8-P Just kidding ... sort of.

Here's my first gallery pic. Resorted to the city park and totally cheated. Focal length 215mm. Nothing to brag about but had to start somewhere. I over sharpened maybe.

That has to be a plastic duck - surely :eek!:

 

[punta]

I know nothing about the Kodak and it will probably be great. Can you return it?8-P Just kidding ... sort of.

Here's my first gallery pic. Resorted to the city park and totally cheated. Focal length 215mm. Nothing to brag about but had to start somewhere. The goose came out better with not fringe or banding around head to remove.
View attachment 458309

Now that's a lot better with the goose :t:

 

[syngensmyth]

That has to be a plastic duck - surely :eek!:

LoL looked at the original again this morning and it is plastic. I really need my eyes checked.

 

[ClarkWGriswold]

Some recent favorite photos with this camera...

Storm Petrel - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524455291/
Kittiwake in flight - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524422225/
Golden-ringed Dragonfly in flight (which I'm really pleased with) - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9527341138/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524563939/in/photostream/
Kestrel close up - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524571663/
Med Gull in flight - http://www.flickr.com/photos/99783236@N05/9524582385/in/photostream/

More on my Flickr to come...

Cheers,

Robert

Some cracking shots there Robert. Really like the Kittiwake:t:

Rich

 

[Roy C]

I have had my SX50 for 9 or 10 months and still can't quite make up my ind about RAW and Superfine JPEG. Sometimes I think RAW has a slight advantage but another day the JPEG seems to do as well. Certainly for long distance record shots I always shoot JPEG which allows the TC to be added in.

Hi Bob, the difference between RAW and JPEG is that the Camera processes the JPEG (from a RAW) whereas the user processes the RAW themselves.
The same base RAW file is always used for every shot and it is that RAW which the camera uses to produce its JPEG. At the end of the day how good the RAW turns out is entirely down to how the user has processed the image. For some folk who are not experience in processing it is not surprising that the Camera does a better job.
For my part I would much sooner process an image how I want it rather than letting the Camera decide but I can fully understand folk that are not into PP preferring to let the Camera do it for them.

One thing I have found is that for shots over 1200mm it is mostly better to use the 1.5x tc (hence JPEG) rather than shooting at 1200mm and cropping a RAW file heavily. On a DSLR you can get away with very heavy cropping but with these small sensor Cameras distant shots do not crop up all that well IMHO.

 

[syngensmyth]

Here is a statement for the basis of my question.
"All taken at max zoom with the 1.5x digital converter"

My problem is the many mentions of 1.5x vs 2.0x digital converter.
Is this simply pushing the zoom on Auto past 50x? I think not.
The manual is not helping me much. The only setting I find for digital zoom is "standard" or "off". And of course, only available on Auto.

I know I'm missing something. (an understatement if there ever was)

Complimentary bird feeder cropped, blurred, sharpened, etc.

 

[draycotebirding]

Here is a statement for the basis of my question.
"All taken at max zoom with the 1.5x digital converter"

My problem is the many mentions of 1.5x vs 2.0x digital converter.
Is this simply pushing the zoom on Auto past 50x? I think not.
The manual is not helping me much. The only setting I find for digital zoom is "standard" or "off". And of course, only available on Auto.

I know I'm missing something. (an understatement if there ever was)

Complimentary bird feeder cropped, blurred, sharpened, etc.

Think I have posted this before

Regards

John

 

[syngensmyth]

Thanks John, but that is the part of the manual that does me no good

On Auto my alternatives are "standard" or "off"
On any other mode selection the options are grey and unavailable.

Edit:
OK, I reset the options to default and now the digital zoom 1.2/2.0 are available. Not sure what setting was restricting it.

 

[Roy C]

Here are a few more snaps taken at 1800mm (full frame equivalent) with the 1.5x tc invoked. Nothing special but it keeps the thread going!.
P.S. I have just noticed that the Stonechat shot is completely 'blown' around the neck :eek!: - ah well it still makes for a reasonable snap with it perched on gorse against the blue sky.

 

[Bob Philpott]

Hi Bob, the difference between RAW and JPEG is that the Camera processes the JPEG (from a RAW) whereas the user processes the RAW themselves.

Roy, Thank you for the comments. I have set AV to only shoot in RAW and this year that has tended to be used on butterflies. I keep C1 set to use zoom with Jpeg etc. It may be that my 'problem' is that whilst I can view RAW through Faststone for my first run through I have to use DPP to process (only have Pshop Elements 10) and I haven't used DPP enough to get to grips with it. It is probably a matter of perseverance.

 

[Roy C]

Roy, Thank you for the comments. I have set AV to only shoot in RAW and this year that has tended to be used on butterflies. I keep C1 set to use zoom with Jpeg etc. It may be that my 'problem' is that whilst I can view RAW through Faststone for my first run through I have to use DPP to process (only have Pshop Elements 10) and I haven't used DPP enough to get to grips with it. It is probably a matter of perseverance.

Hi Bob,while DPP is superb at converting Canon RAW's it is very limited for the actual image editing IMO.
What I would do when you shoot in RAW with your software would be to processes the RAW in DPP and then send to Elements 10 as a 16 bit tiff for the main processing/editing. When you finish editing in Elements just convert to a 8 bit for saving as a Jpeg.
The beauty with shooting in RAW as opposed to Jpeg is that you can do a lot of editing selectively like sharpening, noise reduction, shadows/highlights, ................. . When you leave it to the Camera via Jpeg it does all these thing globally which is not want you want for a lot of shots.
Good shooting :t: